Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-05-2012, 11:33 AM   #1
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Default Ben's Smart

Originally Posted by Ben Stein
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured…. but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”

"And now, any of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are
citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced
to buy insurance because they are citizens."
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 11:52 AM   #2
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Meh, but anyone -citizen or not can go use public resources showing up in an ER without insurance.... so it's pretty stupid not to make everyone that you have documented cover themselves.

Legal or illegal doesn't change the fact that if someone shows up at an ER without insurance, tax payers have to cover it.

Theoretically, if an illegal shows up, they should be treated and then deported. That's why in the current system, I don't think you should have a "right" to make taxpayers pay for your insurance by not having any.

Only way to change that is to start refusing treatment to people without insurance that can't pay for it with cash.

Last edited by Pinkheart; 10-05-2012 at 12:00 PM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 02:24 PM   #3
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
I'd be OK with this with one exception: Immediate life threatening conditions should still be taken care of.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 02:48 PM   #4
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
I'd be OK with this with one exception: Immediate life threatening conditions should still be taken care of.
I would be, too but that would still cost a lot. Major procedures are where insurance really matters.

People should still be required to have insurance, so I am not paying for thier heart attacks, having babies, or anything else, life threatening or not.... or good Lord ongoing life threatening conditions.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 02:40 AM   #5
Aolynd
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
Meh, but anyone -citizen or not can go use public resources showing up in an ER without insurance.... so it's pretty stupid not to make everyone that you have documented cover themselves.

Legal or illegal doesn't change the fact that if someone shows up at an ER without insurance, tax payers have to cover it.

Theoretically, if an illegal shows up, they should be treated and then deported. That's why in the current system, I don't think you should have a "right" to make taxpayers pay for your insurance by not having any.

Only way to change that is to start refusing treatment to people without insurance that can't pay for it with cash.
I like how you convince yourself that paying to insure them will be cheaper than treating emergencies. In your mind, insurance is a business that loses billions of dollars a year and only makes profits because they have outstanding bake sales every spring?
Aolynd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 08:01 AM   #6
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Aolynd View Post
I like how you convince yourself that paying to insure them will be cheaper than treating emergencies. In your mind, insurance is a business that loses billions of dollars a year and only makes profits because they have outstanding bake sales every spring?
I am not sure what you are saying - that paying to insure them will be cheaper than treating emergencies? They have to pay for their own insurance... the government isn't buying it for them. It forces people to cover themselves.

I guess my remark about covering your documented people might have made it sound like I was saying the government would cover them, but what I meant was how the law requires them to get coverage.

So, making people cover themselves is cheaper than tax payers treating emergencies.

This is also why these ridiculous comments about government deciding your treatment and managing insurance are silly. The law requires people to buy insurance from insurance companies- it is not the government insuring people. Oh, and the silly lies about the "death panels", regarding a panel of doctors that reviews treatments- THAT one is funny- considering anyone that has EVER dealt with an insurance company knows that they have these "death panels" already that approve or deny procedures for coverage, and they are not always doctors.

Hell, my partner has been in a 9 month long fight with his insurance company because his doctor wants to use a treatment that is not only more effective, but is actually much CHEAPER than the treatment he has been getting (for MS), and the insurance panel keeps denying coverage of the procedure because it is considered a secondary use of the procedure (chemo), and the primary use is cancer. So they won't cover it. They are not doctors, and several doctors have written to the insurance company telling them it needs to be done, etc. and they refuse to listen.

There are so many lies and so much hyperbole surrounding Obamacare, it's just plain funny to someone that has dealt with insurance companies.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 01:25 PM   #7
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
I would be, too but that would still cost a lot. Major procedures are where insurance really matters.
We're already paying for them. But that's in addition to people using the ER for colds, flu, broken bones, etc that we're also paying for.

People should still be required to have insurance, so I am not paying for thier heart attacks, having babies, or anything else, life threatening or not.... or good Lord ongoing life threatening conditions.
And when "they can't afford it"???
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North

Last edited by Drysdale; 10-08-2012 at 01:42 PM.
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 07:46 AM   #8
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
We're already paying for them. But that's in addition to people using the ER for colds, flu, broken bones, etc that we're also paying for.
Yes, I know. Currently we pay for it all. We shouldn't be paying for any of it that they can cover themselves.

And when "they can't afford it"???
Well, there are lots of incentives... but they will get fined I guess. I mean, if they truly can't afford it, there are Medicaid or other current programs. The issue is there are a lot of people that can afford it, and just refuse to get it. Those that don't qualify for Medicaid really can afford it, they are just not prioritizing it, because they don't have to.... well until now.

The issue isn't the ones that truly can't afford it. They will be covered by a public program in any scenario. The problem is the massive amount of people that can afford it and just let taxpayers pick up the tab.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.